Skip to main content

I found this information which discusses piston speeds and cylinder lubrication for high-speed steam locomotives. It specifically cites the N&W  J Class 4-8-4s as a case in point:

http://5at.co.uk/index.php/faq...-speed-too-high.html

The above 10 reasons are given to indicate why no lubrication problem is expected on the 5AT despite its high piston speed (and it is not so much higher than what has been achieved before, e.g. the N&W  J Class 4-8-4s apparently ran regularly at 90 mph with 70 inch drivers giving the same piston speed that the 5AT would have at 97mph - see note below). The key, apart from the fundamental item No. 1 in the list, is the taking of so many factors (e.g. light piston, use of a tail rod, flexible rings, drifting steam etc.) all of which act to improve lubrication. If you didn't have all these factors coming together you would have trouble if for any reason (e.g. oil starvation or excessive bearing pressure) full hydrodynamic lubrication (i.e. the forming of a proper load-bearing oil film) were not present during the entire piston stroke. That this may well have happened with first-generation locomotives is why some idea of limiting piston speed probably developed, but, e.g. like using 450oC steam (where 400oC was thought the limit in the past), such previously considered limitations no longer apply where proper means are taken to overcome them.

Note: According to Philip Atkins in his book "Dropping the Fire", page 24, one of the Class Js attained a speed of 110 mph whilst experimentally running on the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1944 with half worn (5ft 8 ½ inch) tyres.  And of course the boiler pressure of the Js in final form was 300 psi.  The 110mph speed reached by a J is further corroborated in David P. Morgan's book "Steam's Finest Hour" p61: "As for the J, need anything more be said than that a comparatively low-drivered 4-8-4 proved herself not only equal to the mountains but also capable of whipping a 1025-ton test passenger train up to 110 miles per hour across the Virginia swamps".

Last edited by Ace
Dominic Mazoch posted:

Maybe this is possible.  Both units, er, engines, SP 4449 and N&W 611 are still running.  Hence, there are blueprints for them.  How about programming computers so they would be virtual steamers.  Then run both of them with the same train on different lines.  Not the same as a steam off.  But it is as close as one can get to today.

Another contest would be a UP 4000 VS a C&O 1600!

Given the maximum weight train that a 4000 could start, there'd be no contest. At 135,375 lbs TE for the Big Boy vs. 110,200 lbs for the Allegheny, the Allegheny would never get going.

For the maximum weight train that the H-8 could start she should be able to roll it faster than the 4-8-8-4 due to her higher horsepower output. 

The Big Boys ultimately won overall by being way better suited to the service they were assigned to.

The Alleghenies were better suited to the kind of service that the later Challengers performed for the UP: high speed manifest trains on moderate grades.

Their potential was wasted in coal drag service between Hinton and Clifton Forge.

As for the main subject of this thread, I thank the Lord that both 4-8-4s were built,  as well as all the others.  I'm glad that the steam era was one of customization. How sad it would have been if they were all off-the-shelf models,  differing only in paint  schemes and lettering.

Last edited by Nick Chillianis

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×